Executive Confusion

Talking heads and historians alike have decried the evolution of the "imperial presidency" for at least three decades now. Nixon's abuses of executive power drove Congress to react and pass a series of measures that sought to restore the balance between the legislative and executive branches. Presidential power has, however, continued to grow, and since 9/11 that growth has accelerated.

And now it would appear that the growth of executive power is manifesting itself among the states as well. Texas Governor Rick Perry recently issued an executive order, mandating that all girls receive the HPV vaccine upon entering sixth grade. Let's set aside the fact that the HPV vaccine is relatively new and untested. Let's also ignore the intensive lobbying in which Merck (the producer of the vaccine) has engaged to make the HPV vaccine mandatory. And let us, for now, assume the appropriateness of having the State mandate the receipt of this vaccine at the expense of parental involvement and decision-making. Beyond all of this, Governor Perry has usurped the legislative process, denied the chance to conduct hearings on this matter to gather expert opinion and citizen input, short-circuited public debate, and removed the people's representatives from voting on a decision that has the force of law.

I don't think that the Founding Fathers thought of these kinds of decisions to rest in the realm of the executive power. It seems to me we have a distorted notion of what executive leadership is supposed to be in our constitutional scheme. The executive branch is supposed to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed" (Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution). This is the executive power. This is the charge of the President of the United States pertaining to federal law, and this is the charge of the governors of the 50 states pertaining to state law.

Nevertheless, for some time now, it has been the "responsibility" of the president to submit a budget to Congress. Excuse me? When did he become the Budgeter-in-Chief?

For some time now, it has been the prerogative of the president to decide when the United States would go to war. But what of Article 1, Section 8 that gives this responsibility, the ultimate change in legal status between nations, to Congress?

For some time now, it has been expected of the president to set the legislative agenda by providing specific proposals to the Congress. Now the president certainly has a role to play in the legislative process. He wields the veto pen, and he has every right to submit legislation for consideration and debate. But I think we go too far when we make him some sort of chief legislator. I think we would be better served if the president kept himself above the "politics" of the matter and acted more as a symbol of national unity. If the president kept himself to setting policy direction and left details to the legislative process, I think the temptation to blur the lines between the executive and legislative branches would disappear.

If this line had been maintained from the start, the "imperial presidency" would never have had a chance to materialize.